Xonsh is really fun, and I used it for many years. My main gripe was that I really wanted a way to make binaries that would “speak xonsh” as its own interface, and that didn’t really feel in the cards.
There are of course way too many tools that use bash scripts or w/e to work, and xonsh would require me to mess around with my own stuff to get it to work, but it was generally a fun experience. Nothing like just being able to write shell script functions with logic and not have to worry about escaping issues. It’s a very good design.
Yes. There’s the clear shallow relevance of them sharing an acronym being related to shells, but the other one has been replaced by ssh for all of this century at least, so it isn’t obvious why you’d bring it up. Just trivia?
I clicked on the link, I read it, I thought about it, I was confused.
Aliases (called nicks in rsh)I know it’s splitting hair but… why? What’s wrong with
alias? What’s wrong with using common, largely accepted vocabulary?Complains aside it looks interesting and as another rubyist I like that it’s a short, hackable code (so I can bring back aliases :P )
Because ‘alias’ is a reserved word in Ruby.
See also the similar project
rush, which was last updated in 2012.Not ruby, but the best prior art on a shell with a general purpose language is https://xon.sh/
Xonsh is really fun, and I used it for many years. My main gripe was that I really wanted a way to make binaries that would “speak xonsh” as its own interface, and that didn’t really feel in the cards.
There are of course way too many tools that use bash scripts or w/e to work, and xonsh would require me to mess around with my own stuff to get it to work, but it was generally a fun experience. Nothing like just being able to write shell script functions with logic and not have to worry about escaping issues. It’s a very good design.
FYI: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Remote_Shell
I think it’d be more productive if you explained why you shared this information. Best to avoid ambiguity n confusion, yeah?
we may judge differently the risk of confusion
…Yes. That’s why I said the thing I said. You judged your comment as clear, it was not.
okay? so are you confused about the relevance of the link, and asking me to explain it for your benefit?
Yes. There’s the clear shallow relevance of them sharing an acronym being related to shells, but the other one has been replaced by ssh for all of this century at least, so it isn’t obvious why you’d bring it up. Just trivia?
I clicked on the link, I read it, I thought about it, I was confused.
the relevance is that there is a conflict in the
binaryexecutable name “rsh”.Best to avoid ambiguity and confusion?
oh I get it I’m slow
?